Brazile: 'Open thine hand wide' to help

In my travels around the country, I’ve noticed that most people, regardless of party label, want our leaders to address our problems and find common solutions. Some leaders — many of our mayors and governors — have had enough of the obstruction and gridlock that rules Congress. They’re going directly to the president — and he to them — to seek out pragmatic, cooperative solutions. The president, state and local officials, even private enterprise, are working together for the common welfare.

In some states, though, Medicaid expansion has become the prop for national ideologues. But not all of them. Several Republican governors who fiercely fought Obamacare have put aside personal preference for the good of their people. Recognizing that health care is a part of their responsibility to the working poor, the Republican governors of Wisconsin, Arizona and Ohio have embraced Medicaid expansion.

A few facts: The federal government will cover 100 percent of Medicaid expansion through 2016, 94 percent from 2017-19 and 90 percent after 2020. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have implemented Medicaid expansion, providing health coverage to almost 9 million Americans. But 25 states have balked, leaving approximately 10 million Americans uncovered or without access. (Two other states, Florida and Pennsylvania, have yet to decide.)

Further, Medicaid has a proven track record: Next year we will celebrate its golden anniversary — 50 years.

A little history: President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill at the Truman Library because Harry Truman, who was at the event, first proposed and vigorously pushed for Medicaid. A Texan and a Missourian helped give the nation Medicaid — and Medicare.

“Indomitable Will: LBJ in the Presidency,” by Mark Updegrove, published in 2012, chronicles the story of Medicaid in a section titled, “Making Harry Truman’s Dream Come True.” In 1945, Truman said, “Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health.” Twenty years later, Johnson told Congress that struggling Americans should “be spared the darkness of sickness without hope.”

This is where it gets personal. My home state, Louisiana, is not — as of this writing — expanding Medicaid. It’s being blocked by Gov. Bobby Jindal. Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu has put a petition on her website asking Jindal to permit Medicaid expansion. Landrieu knows the benefits that expanding Medicaid can bring to Louisiana. I know it, too. I return home often. A lot of the people with whom I grew up, and often their children — good, working people — need this health care. And as a New Orleans Times-Picayune editorial, published on its nola.com website, points out, Medicaid expansion would also be good for Louisiana’s economy.

Jindal has made a political football out of the Medicaid expansion. He is deeply enmeshed with Washington’s Congressional establishment, eager to position himself for a potential run at the presidency. Jindal overstated the costs by millions, (the federal government will pick up 92 percent of the costs the first 10 years), and claimed that it’s better for working men and women to receive charity than health benefits from their own taxes.

Maybe Gov. Jindal will listen to the petition of thousands of citizens. We can hope. But for now, he seems deeply committed to harsh, partisan rhetoric and helping the Koch brothers, who are pouring millions of dollars into Louisiana to defeat Landrieu.

I like Mary Landrieu, and not just because she’s a Democrat and a friend. I like her because she risks her political neck to help people. She did so after two catastrophic hurricanes — Katrina and Rita. I can hear in her voice an echo of LBJ, who said, “This is not just our tradition — or the tradition of the Democratic Party — or even the tradition of the nation. It is as old as the day it was first commanded: ‘Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, to thy needy, in thy land.’”

It’s time Gov. Jindal and others opposed to lending a hand to the needy reconsider their political obstructions.

Donna Brazile is a senior Democratic strategist, a political commentator and contributor to CNN and ABC News.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gov. Perry and Gov. Jindall are making a big mistake. It will not only result in poor health outcomes for the uninsured but higher local taxes. C0rporations may be less willing to relocate and invest in an area with a high rate of uninsured.

Exactly How much of my money does some else deserve ?
Tell me exactly how much your gonna take from me & mine so I can budget !
What's fair Gary? You can choke on that sacred cow, but before , whats fair ??

If health care is a right, then work should be a requirement ! You want to start
with a new, clean fresh ideal, then tell us what that is? Taking my money gets OLD!

We know that Reaganomics won't work. Even the main proponent of Reaganomics, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, sat before Congress and said his ideas had not worked. Lowering taxes doesn't create jobs and subsidies for expansion leads to magnificent banks and hospitals and little else. Roads, electrical grids, and other infrastructure crumble away gradually under Reaganomics. Corporations take the capital they get from tax breaks and use that money to automate plants or build plants in places where conditions allow people to live on virtually nothing.

I say all this not to place blame. Things are what they are. Even so, to give tax breaks to corporations and require no responsibility from those corporations to the American workers is poor policy.

Unfortunately for middle and lower class individuals, some wealthy Americans and corporations seem willing to spend any amount of money to see to it that they can pay whatever wage they wish to pay, even if it means those workers can't earn enough to provide for their basic needs. This corporate money takes the form of campaign contributions and we know that the candidate that spends the most wins about 90% of the time. So tax breaks for corporations harm our nation in that they provide money for campaign contributions to candidates who are then beholden to those interests.

We know that Reaganomics doesn't work. Yet, despite the words of the main architect of Reaganomics, Alan Greenspan, many here seem to cling to the notion that somehow if we lower taxes for the rich everything will be hunky dory. Trickle down Reaganomics don't work people, unless you happen to be rich.

Lets just assume that large businesses and coorportations are evil and deserve to be taxed to death. But they did not start out large. Someone worked and built a company......Like Sam Walton did. So should you begin a business and become profitable and then quit hiring people and expanding so you wont be evil?
I dont think most Americans are against helping people, but they are very tired of helping those who wont help themselves. Pay for insurance before you buy a new car, take care of kids and family before you buy other things. It makes me absolutely sick to see how much I pay for me and my families insurance and then to know if I didn't even try to work I would get better insurance for a way discounted price.
All you have to do is look at the French if you want to see the effects of taxing the rich to death.

The business owner has to borrow from the bank or lessor in order to get ITC. The ITC drove innovation in the 1980s. Many used such to retrofit their businesses so they could hire people. Interest rates were 14 and 15% on prime. Mortgages were 20% under Carter. Volcker was suppressing capital in order to keep small businesses alive through the winter.

Leasing companies had capital apart from the federales. Hence, many businesses leased i. e. they had to spend the money to hire in order to get the tax deductions.

Subsidies is an evil word and such was the farthest thing from the mind of Reagan. It did not escape the Bushes unfortunately.

You mean the France that has the 5th largest economy, 4th fastest growing economy,#1 in access to healthcare and secondary education. The French also have far less income inequality and enjoy a higher quality of life. France was a bad example.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

I think they have higher unemployment numbers than the US and it seems like they have more labor tensions. Probably a bad example, but when your unemployment levels remain high sooner or later it will slam the economy.

Medicaid expansion would mean more jobs for Texas. People currently doing out with medical care would go in. With the numbers, it is silly to not do it. As for how much they are taking from you, do you realize that right now when you pay your property taxes, you are paying for indigent care that would likely be covered instead by the medicaid expansion? That cost is now going back to the counties to cover.

It won't change your federal tax rate, it will lower your property tax rate. It is more money that Texas would get back from the federal government as well.

Covering more people with medical care might also save your life. Someone getting treatment is less likely to spread disease.

The problem here is that we have people who seem to want to defend the indefensible. Yes, there were some decisions that Reagan made that did not work. Where we were headed with Carter was just horrible. ITC worked - because it worked for small business. Big business did not find such as beneficial.